will nikon d40 become obsolete in the future because it has less pixels 6 compared to d40x(10)? i am a rookie?

Question

i am upgrading from a point and shoot to dslr. i dont want to buy another camera in the future for a few years.lot of people posted on the website to buy the d40 and 55-200 vr lenses instead of the d40x.thats what intend to do now.but,after spending all this money,($750),i dont want to be needing more pixels in the future.i'd not be printing larger prints may be 11x14 max.its mostly to take my daughter's pictures and my vacation pictures.
i am very influenced by the article http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm.

i just dont want to regret in the future that i should have got the d40x instead.

please help.my dughter's birthday is coming up and i would like to buy before that.
thanx a lot.

Answer 1

The fact of the matter is, the higher the pixels, the better quality picture you're going to get, though hardly noticeable. I cannot complain about a 6 mp camera, it still has more than what i've got. I don't think you'll regret your purchase. You will get years of service out of it. Typically after two years regardless of the camera you purchase, it has significantly lost value. That's just the nature of the industry. Stick with your gut feeling, I don't think you're making a mistake with the 6 mp. The quality of picture will be just a bit better with the 10, but you will not greatly notice the difference. Especially if you are a rookie, look into other features, image stabilization, red eye reduction, etc. Some cameras offer the higher mp, but not the extras that help the quality. Trust your instinct, mine stays with the d40.

Answer 2

Actually no. According to Ken Rockwell, the D40 has several features that he considers better than the D40x which has 4Megapixels more density.

Keep in mind that simply adding pixel to a fixed area chip does NOT mean automatically higher quality pictures. Consider the following...if you continue to add pixels in a fixed area, the amount of light each pixel receives, drops, thus raising the noise level of the left over image.

The D40 natively will enlarge to around 30 inches wide, so if you are only doing 11x14 prints, you are no where near the maximum capability of even a cheaper point and shoot. I own the Fuji A820 as well and am able to crop the picture down to 1/3 of the original area. The second factor you need to consider is the optics you stick on that camera. The VR lens you mention is one I also own. There is about 1/2 stop drop in luminance with that lens fully zoomed in.

You are going to have to put your money down at some point and not look back. Don't second guess yourself or you'll be looking in every photography store saying "what if?"

The D40 is on sale at several stores including Target, I think this week.

I studied that Rockwell article for days before picking my D40.

Answer 3

Ken's the man and gives very frank and honest advice. Guess what? In a few years, you'll be looking at 12mp, 15mp, or 18mp digital wondercameras wooing shoppers everywhere.

The D40x is a great camera.
The D40 with an extra lens or flash is a great camera system.

Currently, I shoot with D70 or D50 Nikons, dependent on my needs. Do I wish I'd gotten a D80 or D40x? Sometimes, yes. But everytime the opportunity comes up, I spend the extra money on optics, where it makes a difference.

Before I went to tour China this summer, I was considering doing an upgrade. But I eventually decided to get a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens instead. It was the only optic I used on the entire trip and proved itself to be the MVP of my camera bag.

Here are some pictures I've taken with my D50 and D70. Both are 6.1mp cameras.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-45-Tennessee-31-09-01-2007/DSC_0065_GHYoung.html
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-42-Louisiana-Tech-12-09-15-2007/DSC_8135_GHYoung.html

And here's what some ordinary people did when handed a D40 in one small town.
http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown

As a photographer, teacher, & parent, I've always kept a camera nearby for that school event, community fair, dance recital, or class play. The camera helps the photographer, but doesn't "make" the photographer.

I hope you find this a bit helpful.

Answer 4

"Obsolete junk " ? Those aren't the words of a photographer. I still shoot with a Nikon N2000 I bought in 86. And I will never part with my Nikon F3-HP ! A true photographer can never have too many camera's.I have three myself,and would buy more if I could afford it. I'd keep the D40 as a back-up.Or as a carry around. Weather permitting, I always have a camera with me.You never know when that once in a life-time photo opportunity may come up.

Answer 5

I bought a 6mp DSLR (K100D) in May 2007 and after 2000 shots I am more than happy with the image quality. I have a photo of my son on the wall that is 20" x 15", and it was cropped too!

On DSLR's, 10mp is better than 6mp. But in 2 years, the entry level DSLR will be 12mp or 16mp, and it will also have faster shots per second and other improved features.

With DSLR's, the body depreciates, but the lenses do not. Use the extra $ to buy a better lens, not more pxels. When you upgrade the DSLR body in 2 or 3 years, you tan use your good quality lenses on to the upgraded DSLR body.

Answer 6

The D40 will be obsolete in the future but it has virtually nothing to do with the pixels. It will in large part be due to masterful advertising making you believe the last greatest most impressive innovation is now found in what ever model has just been released. Folks that can sell the APS system can and will sell anything you should watch them carefully.

Answer 7

all things digital become "obsolete" after 18 months, like computers etc,

6mp is plenty, a nite course in photography is worth far more than 4mp in image quality- 10mp of bad picture is more bad picture than 6mp.........6mp will do most things unless you print alot of posters

a

Answer 8

no
more pixels does not make a better picture